United Kingdom
November 2025
On 19 November 2025, the OECD published approved updates to the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (the OECD Model Treaty).
The updates include changes to the OECD Model Treaty’s commentary on the definition of a ‘fixed place of business’ permanent establishment in situations of cross-border remote working.
The OECD’s work on permanent establishments and remote working provides welcome clarity and helpful guidance on when remote workers may create a permanent establishment for their employer overseas. This has been called for by the business community and Business at OECD (formerly BIAC), recognising the lack of clarity in the existing rules and the distortive effect this was having on business decisions such as hiring and staff retention. The updated commentary to Article 5 of the OECD Model Treaty sets out five pages of guidance, including examples, replacing the limited two paragraphs that had existed since the last update on home working from a project in 2012. Essentially, the guidance sets out a two-part test: a temporal test that, if passed, means there will be no permanent establishment based solely on the time the employee spends remote working in another country, and, if the temporal test is failed, a commercial reason test that looks at various factors to conclude whether the business has a commercial reason to be operating in the remote location. If it does not, there will be no permanent establishment. It’s clear that the OECD has worked hard to limit or negate there being permanent establishments in situations where only small amounts of profit would be attributed, recognising that this creates increased compliance burdens for businesses and increased administration burdens for tax authorities.
Businesses will need to track and record their employees working remotely in order to assess the temporal test. Whilst modern technology is available to help with some aspects and some groups already use tracking tools to help with payroll or immigration obligations in different countries, processes will need to be put in place to review and assess the data.
In the absence of specific guidance from the OECD or individual countries on a date from which to apply the new guidance on remote working (no such guidance being available yet), it is likely to be considered best practice to consider the temporal and business reason tests in relation to existing double tax treaties where they follow the OECD Model.
Other questions on remote working issues, including corporate residence, more permanent establishment considerations, attribution of profits and transfer pricing, as well as employment tax obligations and personal tax and residence questions, are expected to be dealt with in future OECD Inclusive Framework projects. The scope of this work is anticipated to be agreed in the first few months of 2026.
Other updates to the OECD Model Treaty and Commentary include an optional treaty variant in relation to creating a permanent establishment for extractive activities. Countries wishing to adopt this option will have to modify their existing bilateral tax treaties (although it should be noted that a number of treaties already include provisions along these lines) before they take effect.
Guidance on the primacy of domestic law over double tax treaties in relation to denial of deductions for items such as interest expense disallowed under the interest limitation rules introduced by BEPS is clear. The guidance does not however cover the difficult area of domestic law provisions that cover ‘wholly and exclusively’ type tests, which have sometimes been favoured by tax authorities over transfer pricing audits in order to restrict access to mutual agreement procedures. Businesses may also have some concerns over the guidance which suggests that non-discrimination treaty clauses do not go so far as to limit tax authorities to requesting the same levels of information from overseas businesses as they require from domestic businesses, e.g. in order to substantiate deductions.
Cross-border working from home
The commentary on the definition of a ‘fixed place of business’ permanent establishment has been expanded with over 20 paragraphs of new guidance on how it should be applied to situations involving cross-border remote work. The OECD notes the increasing prevalence of cross-border remote working by individuals from their home or ‘other relevant place’ (e.g. a holiday rental, a second home, or the home of a friend/relative) and that there are particular features associated with such locations such as that they are normally not accessible by other persons working for the business.
The new guidance sets out non-exhaustive factors that should be considered when assessing a ‘home or other relevant place’. The commentary emphasises that, as with other permanent establishments, the determination must be made based on the specific facts and circumstances during a given period, rather than those in past or future periods.
Existing commentary on the meaning of ‘fixed’ in Article 5 including on a required degree of permanence, and on whether the activities undertaken are of a preparatory or auxiliary character, will be applicable.
A home or other relevant place will generally not be considered a fixed place of business if the individual works from that location for less than 50% of their total working time. The 50% test should be assessed over the course of any 12-month period commencing or ending in the fiscal year concerned, and will be based on the actual conduct of the individual rather than formal contractual arrangements.
If an individual spends 50% or more of their working time at home or other relevant place, the facts and circumstances will determine whether a ‘fixed place of business’ exists. The prominent consideration is whether the business has a commercial reason for the activities to be undertaken by the individual in the country. There may be several reasons for using a home or other relevant place to carry out activities related to the business; this indicator will be satisfied if only one of those reasons is a commercial reason. Where there is no commercial reason, the location would not be a ‘place of business’ unless other facts and circumstances indicated otherwise.
A commercial reason will be generally considered to exist where the physical presence of the individual in the country (or in the same geographic region of the country) facilitates the carrying out of the business, for example by facilitating:
The mere presence of customers, suppliers etc. in the country, or the fact that the country is in a different time zone, should not lead to the automatic conclusion that there is a commercial reason. Similarly, a commercial reason would not be considered present if engagements occurred only on an intermittent or incidental basis (e.g. short occasional visits to the premises of a customer).
Importantly, where a business enables an individual to work from home or another place solely to obtain or retain the individual’s services, this would not constitute a commercial reason. Similarly, permitting working from home solely to reduce costs (e.g. to reduce expenditure on office space) would not constitute a commercial reason.
The commentary notes that different considerations will apply to scenarios where the individual is the only or primary person conducting the business of the non-resident entity. For example, the home office of a self-employed consultant working in a country for an extended period and carrying out most of their business activities from there would constitute a fixed place of business.
The updated commentary includes examples to demonstrate the application of these principles:
Exploration and exploitation of extractible natural resources
The commentary has been updated to include new alternative additional model treaty rules, previously consulted upon in 2024, which countries could use in relation to taxation rights over the exploration and exploitation of extractible natural resources. The commentary sets out a lower permanent establishment threshold for such activities, drafted as an optional free-standing model article which could be adopted in bilateral tax treaties.
A permanent establishment would arise in cases where activities, including related services, have been carried on offshore ‘in connection with the exploration or exploitation of the seabed and its subsoil and their natural resources’. This would include activities that, by virtue of, for example, being of a short duration or not geographically fixed, may not otherwise fall within the normal ‘fixed place of business’ definition in Article 5. Countries can agree to also include activities related to the exploration or exploitation of onshore finite natural resources, and other connected specialised activities.
Relevant activities would not include the operation of ships or aircraft for the primary purpose of transporting supplies or personnel, or the operation of vessels with an auxiliary function.
Similar rules are found in a number of existing bilateral tax treaties and the updated commentary aims to bring greater consistency and certainty of interpretation for countries adopting this approach. Countries using the model article are to bilaterally agree a time threshold, but existing treaties with similar provisions use a range of thresholds that include 30, 90 and 183 days. The commentary also includes a further optional rule to expand the employment income taxing rights of the country where the relevant activities are undertaken.
The update includes changes in relation to other articles of the OECD Model Treaty including:
The updates will be incorporated into a revised version of the OECD Model Treaty that will be published ‘in the next few months’.
The OECD will be holding a webinar on the 2025 updates from 15.00 GMT / 16.00 CET on Wednesday 10 December 2025.